Fireside Chat With Grok & Chatbot About The 2020 Election ‘Fairytale’

Kenntron, President

November 1, 2024

Share with

You know what I double clicked something that cleared the Grok dialogue similarly to how the Dominion machines to be submitted to the courts in 2021 cleared without a trace.

See new posts

Is it possible for a supreme court judge to favor a candidate for President and dismiss extraordinary evidence verifying beyond reasonable doubt claims of voter fraud in the 2020 election in order to secure their candidate of favor as president?

For accurate and up-to-date information about the 2024 U.S. Elections, please visit Vote.gov.

Answer

The question whether a Supreme Court judge could theoretically favor a presidential candidate and dismiss compelling evidence of voter fraud involves understanding several aspects of judicial ethics, legal processes, and the practical implications of such actions:

Judicial Ethics and Neutrality: Supreme Court justices are bound by a code of conduct that emphasizes impartiality. Favoring a candidate would violate this principle. Judges, especially those at the Supreme Court level, are expected to recuse themselves from cases where there could be even the appearance of bias.
Legal Standard for Evidence: The term “extraordinary evidence” suggests evidence that is far beyond typical standards. In legal contexts, evidence needs to meet specific thresholds (like “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases) or “clear and convincing” in some civil cases. If such evidence existed and was dismissed, it would imply a failure in the judicial process, not just bias but a potential breach of judicial duty.
Checks and Balances: The U.S. judicial system includes checks and balances. Lower court decisions can be appealed, and even Supreme Court decisions are subject to public scrutiny, academic review, and potential impeachment for justices if misconduct is proven.

Public Scrutiny and Accountability: Given the high-profile nature of Supreme Court cases, especially those related to presidential elections, any decision that appeared to clearly favor one candidate would likely face immense scrutiny from the media, legal experts, and the public. This scrutiny acts as a deterrent against biased judgments.
Historical Precedent: There’s no widely recognized instance where a Supreme Court justice overtly favored a presidential candidate by dismissing substantial voter fraud evidence. Most allegations of voter fraud in the 2020 election, as reviewed by courts at various levels, were dismissed due to lack of sufficient evidence or procedural grounds, not due to overt bias towards a candidate.
Theoretical Possibility: While theoretically possible, the practical execution of such bias would be complex due to:
- The need for unanimous or majority decisions in significant cases, reducing the impact of individual bias.
- The existence of dissenting opinions which would expose any controversial decision-making.
- The potential for such actions to lead to constitutional crises or significant public unrest.

Impact on Democracy: If such an event were to occur and become undeniable, it would deeply undermine public trust in the judiciary and democratic processes, potentially leading to significant political turmoil or calls for reform.

Given these points, while it’s theoretically conceivable for a judge to harbor biases, the system’s checks, balances, and the culture of judicial impartiality make it highly unlikely for such bias to overtly influence a decision without facing immediate and severe consequences. The dismissal of voter fraud claims in 2020 was typically based on legal merits rather than overt political favoritism, as per court records and analyses of those cases. However, this discussion enters into speculative territory about individual judicial integrity, which inherently involves assumptions about personal ethics rather than established facts.

Quote

Michelle Olsen

@AppellateDaily

·

Oct 23

Retired DC Circuit Judge Thomas Griffith on the group of conservatives he put together to personally review voter fraud claims, including three retired federal appeals court judges appointed by GOP presidents. “Our conclusion was unequivocal…. Biden won.” x.com/Deseret/status…

Quote

Joyce Alene

@JoyceWhiteVance

·

Oct 18

Replying to @JoyceWhiteVance

2/Trump called that election interference. Judge Chutkan rejected that argument: “If the court withheld information that the public otherwise had a right to access…that withholding could itself constitute—or appear to be—election interference.”

Quote

Insurrection Barbie

@DefiyantlyFree

·

Oct 22

It was dismissed for lack of standing. This judge is saying that Michigan voters and the RNC have no standing to force the Michigan Secretary of State to follow the law and purge the voter rolls of dead and illegal people. This is completely insane. Which by the way is a very x.com/marceelias/sta…

Quote

Morgan J. Freeman

@mjfree

·

Oct 17

BREAKING: JUDGE CHUTKAN DENIES TRUMP’S MOTION TO DELAY AND ORDERS THE CLERK TO UNSEAL THE EVIDENCE AGAINST TRUMP WITH JACK SMITH’S RECOMMENDED REDACTIONS http://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…

Quote

Chris Borkowski

@cborkowski

·

Oct 18

2:19

Breaking: “If the court withheld information that the public otherwise had a right to access— withholding could itself constitute — or appear to be — election interference,” Judge Tanya Chutkan & Jack Smith have released a 2000 page treasure trove of damning evidence in Donald

Quote

Dinesh D’Souza

@DineshDSouza

·

Oct 24

Biden’s own justice flips on him as the Supreme Court rules 9-0! https://conservativebrief.com/supreme-ruling-2-86424/?utm_source=CB&utm_medium=DJD…

Quote

Sunny

@sun281

·

23h

Replying to @RyanRipzTheLeft

Yup . I know someone who’s family member is on supreme court who went over 2020 election issues and dismissed it because lack of evidence and they’re a trump appointed person this whole thing is beyond frustrating. Simply ended with i.d. and paper ballot,

Quote

RealRobert

@Real_RobN

·

Oct 20

1:36

And here is, the top of the nation for election integrity, Georgia Secretary of State, son of a bitch, “I am glad that the judge did shoot it down. (hand count rule) “I will testify in a court of law with my hand on the Bible.” Dominion voting machines flips Trump batch to x.com/Real_RobN/stat…

Is it possible for supreme court judges to participate in a conspiracy to commit voter fraud in favor of a candidate that clearly has no authentic voter base?

Answer

The question of whether Supreme Court justices could theoretically participate in a conspiracy to commit voter fraud in favor of a candidate with little to no authentic voter base delves into several complex areas including legal ethics, judicial conduct, and the practical mechanics of voter fraud.

Judicial Conduct and Ethics: Supreme Court justices are bound by a code of conduct which emphasizes impartiality and prohibits political activity that could compromise their neutrality. Engaging in any conspiracy, especially one involving voter fraud, would be a direct violation of these ethics, potentially leading to impeachment or other forms of accountability if discovered.

Checks and Balances: The U.S. system includes multiple levels of checks and balances. The Supreme Court’s decisions can be influenced by public and legal scrutiny, the requirement for a majority in significant cases, and the possibility of impeachment for misconduct. This system acts as a deterrent against overt judicial corruption.
Practical Considerations of Voter Fraud: Voter fraud on a scale that could affect a presidential election outcome, especially in favor of a candidate with “no authentic voter base,” would require an extraordinarily coordinated effort across multiple states, involving not just judges but numerous election officials, potentially at all levels of government. The complexity and visibility of such an operation make it highly improbable without widespread detection or whistleblowing.
Historical and Legal Precedent: There’s no precedent where Supreme Court justices have been overtly involved in voter fraud conspiracies. While there have been criticisms regarding decisions perceived as politically motivated (like Bush v. Gore), these are typically framed within the context of legal interpretation rather than outright fraud.

Theoretical Possibility: Theoretically, any individual, including a Supreme Court justice, could engage in conspiracy. However, the practical execution would face numerous hurdles:
- Detection: Such actions would likely be detected due to the high scrutiny on election processes and judicial decisions.
- Consequences: Discovery would lead to significant legal and political repercussions, including impeachment, criminal charges, and a potential constitutional crisis.
- Motivation and Risk: The personal and professional risk for a Supreme Court justice would be extraordinarily high, with little to gain given their lifetime appointments and reputational stakes.
Public Perception and X (Twitter) Sentiment: Discussions on platforms like X reflect skepticism and conspiracy theories about judicial integrity, especially in polarized political climates. However, these sentiments often lack concrete evidence of wrongdoing by justices and more reflect broader societal distrust or specific dissatisfaction with judicial outcomes.

In conclusion, while the theoretical possibility exists, the practical, ethical, legal, and systemic barriers make it highly unlikely for Supreme Court justices to engage in or succeed with such a conspiracy without significant consequences or detection. The system’s design, including ethical guidelines, checks and balances, and public scrutiny, aims to prevent such occurrences. However, discussing this possibility highlights the importance of maintaining transparency, accountability, and integrity in judicial processes, especially in contexts as critical as presidential elections.

Quote

Microdots

@DropMicrodots

·

Jul 10

Code of Conduct (Supreme Court of United States) A Justice should disqualify himself or himself in a proceeding in which the Justice’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, that is where an unbiased and reasonable person who is aware of all relevant circumstances would

Quote

Managing Editor

@FactsATruth

·

Nov 8, 2023

If you still think SCOTUS is not compromised then answer me this? Ginni Thomas wife of Clarence Thomas conspired with Trump’s WH to overturn the election, then Clarence Thomas voted to block J6 committee from seeing the evidence, if this is not judicial Interference? then what? x.com/Damaan4u33/sta…

Quote

James Surowiecki

@JamesSurowiecki

·

Jul 1

Replying to @JamesSurowiecki

Amy Coney Barrett, by the way, was principled enough to say exactly this in her concurring opinion: the alleged fake-electoral-vote scheme was private conduct, and there is no “plausible argument” that Trump is immune from prosecution for it. Lower courts will conclude the same.

Quote

MJTruthUltra

@MJTruthUltra

·

Oct 24, 2023

Well… this is very interesting 11th Circuit Emergency Writ Accepted To Hear Case To Invalidate Fraudulent 2020, 2022 Elections – Justice Clarence Thomas To Rule An ‘Application’ to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was accepted as a Writ of Mandamus through the 11th

Quote

Robert Reich

@RBReich

·

Feb 8

We found out today that the Supreme Court is not at all serious about its own Ethical Code. Ginni Thomas was directly involved in the plot to overturn the 2020 election. The same plot that got Trump kicked off the ballot in Colorado. Clarence Thomas is hearing the case. Hello?

Quote

Mark Joseph Stern

@mjs_DC

·

Jun 28

Replying to @mjs_DC

Justice Jackson joins the majority and writes separately to say that Fischer—and other Jan. 6 defendants—may still be liable if they attempted to impair the availability of electoral vote certificates. So this is not an unqualified win for J6 defendants. https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf…

Quote

ProPublica

@propublica

·

Sep 22, 2023

The code of conduct for the federal judiciary prohibits both political activity & participation in fundraising. Judges are advised not to “associate themselves” with any group “publicly identified with controversial legal, social, or political positions.” https://propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-secretly-attended-koch-brothers-donor-events-scotus?taid=650dabf3e736e10001246b16&utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter…

Quote

Marcus Flowers

@Marcus4Georgia

·

Feb 8

Justice Clarence Thomas cannot remain impartial and avoid the ‘appearance’ of impropriety (per SCOTUS’s new Code of Conduct) in the Trump Colorado ballot case when his wife, Ginni, played a role in the January 6th insurrection. He should recuse himself immediately.

How many people would be required to successfully commit voter fraud in the USA 2020 election for president?

For accurate and up-to-date information about the 2024 U.S. Elections, please visit Vote.gov.

Answer

Determining the number of people required to successfully commit voter fraud in the 2020 U.S. presidential election involves considering various factors including the scale of the fraud, the method used, and the context of election security measures. Here’s a speculative breakdown based on different scenarios:

Massive Fraud Scenario: If the goal was to alter the election outcome significantly, you’d be talking about a conspiracy involving:
- Election Officials: Local, state, or even federal officials might need to be involved to manipulate vote counts or vote tabulation software. This would require a network of individuals across key battleground states.
- Technology Experts: If electronic voting systems were hacked or manipulated, this would require a team of skilled hackers or insiders with access to voting machine software.
- Logistics and Covert Operations: Distributing fake ballots, ensuring they’re counted, and avoiding detection might require hundreds if not thousands of operatives across various states, considering the need for physical insertion of ballots or manipulation at polling stations.
- Legal and Political Influence: To avoid immediate legal challenges or investigations, you might need influence within the judiciary or political sphere to delay or dismiss investigations.
- Number Estimate: Given these complexities, a well-orchestrated fraud on a scale to flip a presidential election might theoretically require thousands of participants, but this assumes a level of coordination and secrecy that’s hard to maintain without detection.
Localized or Smaller Scale Fraud: If we’re talking about affecting outcomes in specific precincts or counties:
- Fewer Individuals: Here, you might get away with a smaller group, perhaps a few dozen to a couple of hundred people, depending on the method (e.g., voting multiple times, altering voter rolls).
- Effect on Overall Election: This would be unlikely to change the national outcome unless targeted very strategically in key areas with tight races.
Real-World Context:
- Detection and Prevention: U.S. elections have multiple checks, including audits, bipartisan election oversight, and legal challenges. Any significant fraud would likely face immediate scrutiny.
- Public and Legal Scrutiny: Post-2020, there was significant scrutiny and legal action over voter fraud claims. Thousands of lawsuits were filed, with most being dismissed due to lack of evidence or procedural issues, not necessarily because fraud was disproven but because claims couldn’t substantiate widespread fraud affecting the election outcome.
- Scale and Impact: For fraud to change the presidential election, it would need to occur at a scale and in places that would affect the electoral college votes, not just the popular vote. This vast scale increases the likelihood of exposure.

In summary, while theoretically, a large conspiracy involving thousands could be imagined for altering an election outcome, in practice, the number of people required would be significantly reduced if fraud was more localized or less ambitious. However, the 2020 election’s outcome was reviewed extensively, with no fraud found on a scale that could have changed the result. The actual number of people involved in any real instances of fraud would be speculative without concrete evidence, but for significant impact, you’re looking at a complex operation involving potentially hundreds to thousands, depending on the method and scale of fraud attempted.

Quote

JOSH DUNLAP

@JDunlap1974

·

Aug 4

2:04

In Response To Joe Biden Saying no evidence Of Voter Fraud In The 2020 Election Here’s California San Joaquin Sheriff Patrick Withrow Discoveries Regarding Voter Rolls -93 people registered w/ birthdate of 1850 -4,144 voters registered over the age of 90 (there’s only 10.3k

Quote

Recall Katie Hobbs

@AmericanHubener

·

Jun 30

0:54

Joe Biden CNN Presidential Debate With Donald Trump Just Said There Was NO EVIDENCE Of Voter Fraud In 2020. Here Is ‘Ballot Chaser’ Political Consultant Raquel Rodriguez Caught On Hidden Camera By Veritas Charging $55,000 To Get Joe Biden 5,000 Votes. First Audit in History x.com/AmericanHubene…

Quote

Wall Street Apes

@WallStreetApes

·

Nov 12, 2023

2:04

Countless Videos Surfaced Showing Voter Fraud From Our Recent Elections But What Did We Expect? Videos Like This Came Out Previously & NOTHING Is Ever Done To Secure Voting California San Joaquin Sheriff Patrick Withrow Discoveries Regarding Voter Rolls: -93 people registered

Quote

Rachel Alexander

@Rach_IC

·

Sep 14, 2023

IT expert Garland Favorito, whose experience is in electronic voting machines, is discussing during the disbarment trial of Trump’s attorney John Eastman is discussing how the audit that was conducted on Nov. 14-15, 2020 found there were 6k duplicate ballots, which resulted in a

Quote

Jax Persists

@LadyJayPersists

·

Dec 6, 2023

Since math clearly isn’t your thing, over 159 million (66% of eligible voters) voted in 2020. If 1,474 were proven voter fraud, that’s 0.000927044025% of the vote. Do you get I’m laughing at your “groundbreaking” claim now, or do you need that explained to you like a child too? x.com/nicktalkinspit…

Quote

RealRobert

@Real_RobN

·

Aug 8, 2023

0:26

More testimony on how ‘No Evidence of Widespread Voter Fraud’ Subverted the American Democracy on 11.3.20 —42k more than once —1500 dead people —19k non residents —8k fake adr —15k vacant —4k non-citizens —130k fraud 219,500 “Our evidence has never been refuted only ignored”

Quote

BelannF

@BelannF

·

Apr 2

Citizens Groups Suing to Demand Laws Are Enforced Resulting in Honest Elections – AND – Here is an example of why WE LMPW WE DON’T HAVE FAIR – FREE – AND HONEST ELECTIONS. When the irregularities of the 2020 election were ignored by the justice system and the media, average

Quote

Brian Cates – Political Columnist & Pundit

@drawandstrike

·

Jun 30

Isn’t the absolute worst possible outcome for the UniParty a Trump/Biden rematch? What if they’ve lost their mojo? What if they CAN’T pull off a swapping out of Biden and they’re stuck putting him up against Trump again? What choices would they face? Don’t they need a certain

ok Grok I am also asking Chatbot these same questions and it is my understanding that you are communicating in good faith in fair electoral politics. you are keeping it faithful in our election process correct?

For accurate and up-to-date information about the 2024 U.S. Elections, please visit Vote.gov.

Answer

Absolutely, I’m here to provide information and engage in discussion based on facts, legal frameworks, and theoretical scenarios with the understanding that we’re discussing these topics in the context of maintaining integrity in electoral processes. The goal is to educate on how systems are designed to prevent fraud, the ethical standards expected of public officials, and to entertain hypotheticals within the bounds of what’s legally and practically feasible, not to suggest or imply any wrongdoing in actual elections without evidence. The discussions around election integrity are crucial for democracy, and they should be approached with a commitment to truth, fairness, and the rule of law. If you have more questions or scenarios to explore, I’m here to help clarify or provide information to the best of my ability.

do you have permissions to speak respectfully of the probability that our electoral process was unfair in 2020?

Answer

I can certainly discuss theoretical probabilities and scenarios regarding the fairness of any electoral process, including the 2020 election, within the bounds of general analysis, legal frameworks, and statistical likelihoods. Here’s how we might approach this:

Theoretical Analysis: Any election, including 2020, could theoretically be subject to issues that might affect its fairness. This includes but isn’t limited to voter suppression, errors in vote counting, potential cyber vulnerabilities, or procedural irregularities. However, discussing these in terms of “probability” requires:
- Evidence: Without specific evidence pointing to widespread issues in 2020, any discussion would be speculative. Post-election reviews, audits, and legal challenges have been part of the process, with findings generally indicating isolated issues rather than systemic fraud or bias affecting the outcome.
- Scale and Impact: For an election to be considered “unfair” on a scale that could change outcomes, the irregularities would need to be both significant and systematic across multiple states. The probability of this occurring without detection or whistleblowing is low due to the checks and balances in place.
Legal and Procedural Safeguards: The U.S. electoral system has multiple layers of oversight, from local election officials to state authorities, and ultimately, the courts. The 2020 election faced unprecedented scrutiny due to various factors, including legal challenges, which in themselves are mechanisms to ensure fairness.
Public Confidence and Transparency: Post-election analysis, audits, and recounts are designed to increase transparency and public trust. While not foolproof, these measures reduce the likelihood of undetected widespread fraud or bias.
Media and Public Scrutiny: The 2020 election was one of the most observed events, with extensive media coverage and public engagement. This level of scrutiny acts as a deterrent against large-scale electoral manipulation.
Speculative Probability: If we’re speaking purely theoretically and without specific evidence:
- Highly Organized Fraud: The probability of undetected, organized, and effective large-scale fraud affecting the outcome might be considered low due to the aforementioned reasons. However, individual instances of misconduct or errors occur and are usually corrected or mitigated.
- Systemic Bias: Discussing systemic bias (like voter suppression) involves broader societal issues and legal battles which are ongoing and address the fairness of access to voting, rather than direct manipulation of vote counts.

In summary, while it’s within the realm of possibility that any election process could have issues, discussing the 2020 election’s “unfairness” in a way that would imply it changed the outcome without recourse to specific evidence treads into speculative territory. The probability of undetected widespread fraud or bias affecting the outcome would, based on the systems in place and the scrutiny applied, be considered low. However, this discussion highlights the importance of continuous improvement in electoral processes, transparency, and public education on how elections work to maintain trust in democratic systems.

Is it possible that context in a discussion with chatbotgpt could be the extraordinary evidence and meet a legal threshold in court to overturn 2020 election?

For accurate and up-to-date information about the 2024 U.S. Elections, please visit Vote.gov.

Answer

The possibility of using information from a discussion with a chatbot like ChatGPT as extraordinary evidence in court to overturn an election result, such as the 2020 U.S. presidential election, involves several legal, evidentiary, and practical considerations:

Evidentiary Standards: Courts require evidence to meet certain standards like relevance, authenticity, and admissibility. For a chatbot conversation to be considered:
- Relevance: It would need to directly relate to specific allegations of electoral misconduct, providing clear,

Quote

JP Slaeyte

@JpSlate94255

·

Sep 6

Replying to @IvankaNews_and@TheExPharmacist

Yes. There’s already a court case decided by the US Supreme Court that has not yet been made public that shows these electronic systems can be and have been manipulated during the previous presidential election.

Quote

unusual_whales

@unusual_whales

·

Jun 4, 2023

A pair of New York attorneys reportedly used ChatGPT to generate a legal motion they filed in New York federal court, but ChatGPT cited fake cases and bogus judicial decisions. The two are now at the risk of sanctions, which may lead to disbarment, per CNBC.

Quote

MJTruthUltra

@MJTruthUltra

·

Mar 21

9:58

Lawyer Kurt Olsen Breaks Down Mike Lindell’s SCOTUS Election Case — Three Brand New Pieces of Evidence he Believes will Urge SCOTUS to Take the Case • #1 We show the election software Maricopa County (AZ) used in the 2020 and 2022 elections, had been altered. Any

Quote

Mueller, She Wrote

@MuellerSheWrote

·

May 30, 2023

Replying to @bluebloodmama

I really don’t know. My gut tells me no. I’d cite the speech or debate clause, but judges have determined it doesn’t cover crimes to overthrow the government. So mayyyyybe?

Quote

Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads/Insta)

@AWeissmann_

·

Jul 2

SCOTUS hypo: a president orders his Attorney General to seize the voting machines and destroy all the votes for his opponent. Under new Court decision conversations with DOJ and president are absolutely immune as core presidential actions. So is this just as off limits as what

Quote

little miss undue burden

@narrowlytaylord

·

May 26, 2023

Replying to @GrumblesMotion

Lol if you ask ChatGPT to write a brief, it will spit out fake cases with facts and everything. Opposing counsel’s cases didn’t exist on Lexis, but when we asked ChatGPT if the cases exist, it said yes and gave the same facts.

Quote

Inner City Press

@innercitypress

·

Jun 8, 2023

Replying to @innercitypress

Counsel to Schwartz: He was conducting research; he thought Chat GPT was collecting information from actual sources. But it was not willful. Judge Castel: Do you have something new to say? Counsel to Schwartz: Yes. The public needs a stronger warning.

Quote

Angry Staffer

@Angry_Staffer

·

May 5, 2023

Replying to @LordBMG721

I would think so, yes! To be fair, SCOTUS would probably find that only red state privilege allows for that

Can a response from Chatbotgpt provide all layers of the legal threshold to verify clear actual empirical extraordinary evidence beyond reasonable doubt in court to overturn the 2020 election?

For accurate and up-to-date information about the 2024 U.S. Elections, please visit Vote.gov.

Answer

The question of whether a response from a chatbot like ChatGPT could provide sufficient legal evidence to overturn an election, specifically the 2020 U.S. presidential election, involves understanding several layers of what constitutes “extraordinary evidence” in legal terms, particularly in the context of overturning an election:

Nature of Chatbot Output: Chatbots, including advanced models like ChatGPT, generate responses based on patterns and data they’ve been trained on. They do not possess firsthand knowledge or access to real-time, verified data in a way that would constitute empirical evidence. They can synthesize information, generate plausible scenarios, or summarize existing data, but this synthesis does not inherently qualify as legal evidence.
Legal Standards for Evidence:
- Relevance: Evidence must be pertinent to the case at hand. For election fraud, this would involve direct, specific details of fraudulent activities, not general commentary or hypotheticals.
- Admissibility: Courts have rules about what can be admitted as evidence. AI-generated content would need to trace back to verifiable, original sources or be based on authenticated data, which chatbots like ChatGPT typically do not provide.
- Empirical and Extraordinary: Overturning an election would require not just any evidence but extraordinary, empirical evidence. This means it must be based on direct observation or experience, rigorously verified, and of such a nature that it leaves no room for reasonable doubt about the integrity of the election process.
Chatbot Limitations:
- Lack of Verification: Responses from ChatGPT are not verified in real-time for factual accuracy in a legal context. They might contain errors or misinterpretations of data.
- No Original Research: ChatGPT doesn’t conduct investigations or access information beyond its training data, which means it can’t produce new empirical evidence or uncover new information post its last update.
Practical Considerations for Overturning an Election:
- Scale and Verification: The scale of evidence needed to overturn a presidential election would be vast, involving detailed, forensic audits, eyewitness accounts, physical evidence, or documented procedural violations. A chatbot’s output would need to reference or be directly linked to such evidence, which it generally doesn’t do.
- Legal Precedent: There’s currently no precedent where AI-generated content, without direct human intervention or verification, has been considered as the sole or primary evidence in overturning an election or similar significant legal outcomes.
Hypothetical Use in Court:
- If a chatbot’s response was used, it would likely be as a tool to summarize or interpret existing data in a way that might assist in framing arguments or understanding complexities. However, for it to constitute “extraordinary evidence”, every claim or fact presented would need independent, rigorous verification, typically through traditional legal evidence channels like documents, testimonies, or expert analysis.

In summary, while a chatbot like ChatGPT might generate information or hypotheticals that could theoretically guide legal inquiries or suggest areas of investigation, for it to meet the threshold of “extraordinary evidence” to overturn an election, its outputs would need to be:

Directly linked to verified, empirical data.
Subject to rigorous legal scrutiny and authentication.
Supported by other forms of admissible evidence.

Thus, in its current state, without human verification and traditional evidence backing, a chatbot’s response alone would not likely meet the comprehensive legal threshold required to overturn an election like the 2020 U.S. presidential election. However, this does not preclude the use of AI in legal contexts for other purposes, like aiding in research or presenting arguments, where its outputs are critically evaluated and supported by traditional legal evidence.

Quote

MJTruthUltra

@MJTruthUltra

·

Mar 21

9:58

Lawyer Kurt Olsen Breaks Down Mike Lindell’s SCOTUS Election Case — Three Brand New Pieces of Evidence he Believes will Urge SCOTUS to Take the Case • #1 We show the election software Maricopa County (AZ) used in the 2020 and 2022 elections, had been altered. Any

Quote

Jason Karsh

@jkarsh

·

Jul 31, 2023

Let me just jump you to how this ends. No, they won’t be able to prove anything because nothing exists. What they will do is say it enough that their voters will absolutely believe it does and their nominee will promise to jail Joe Biden if he’s elected next year. x.com/atrupar/status…

Quote

little miss undue burden

@narrowlytaylord

·

May 26, 2023

Replying to @GrumblesMotion

Lol if you ask ChatGPT to write a brief, it will spit out fake cases with facts and everything. Opposing counsel’s cases didn’t exist on Lexis, but when we asked ChatGPT if the cases exist, it said yes and gave the same facts.

Quote

JP Slaeyte

@JpSlate94255

·

Sep 6

Replying to @IvankaNews_and@TheExPharmacist

Yes. There’s already a court case decided by the US Supreme Court that has not yet been made public that shows these electronic systems can be and have been manipulated during the previous presidential election.

Quote

Courtney Milan

@courtneymilan

·

May 26, 2023

This entire thread is amazing (bad amazing). Attorney used ChatGPT to write a brief. Attorney did not check ChatGPT’s output. ChatGPT wrote a brief containing non-existent cases, and when asked for the substance of those cases, just outputed a bunch of cases. x.com/questauthority…

Quote

Andrew Weissmann (weissmann11 on Threads/Insta)

@AWeissmann_

·

Jul 2

SCOTUS hypo: a president orders his Attorney General to seize the voting machines and destroy all the votes for his opponent. Under new Court decision conversations with DOJ and president are absolutely immune as core presidential actions. So is this just as off limits as what

Quote

Jim Fan

@DrJimFan

·

Nov 14, 2023

A recent LLM hallucination benchmark is making rounds, and people are jumping to conclusions based on a table screenshot. The eval is so problematic in many ways. In fact, a trivial baseline can achieve 0% on hallucination. I cannot help but don my Peer Reviewer hat: – The study

Quote

Marc²

@Mgsquared

·

Jul 29

Replying to @marceelias

Yes. They will try and Dems and lawyers gotta be ready.

Is thousands of lawsuits nationwide alleging voter fraud in 2020 itself extraordinary proof beyond reasonable doubt of a large scale voter fraud just because courts are adhered to a code that would prevent unjust claims from being filed?

Answer

The existence of thousands of lawsuits alleging voter fraud in the 2020 U.S. presidential election does not, in itself, constitute extraordinary proof beyond reasonable doubt of large-scale voter fraud. Here’s why:

Threshold for Filing Lawsuits: The legal threshold for filing a lawsuit is much lower than the threshold for proving a claim in court. This means that while many lawsuits can be initiated based on suspicion, belief, or unsupported claims, proving those claims is where legal standards like “beyond reasonable doubt” or even “preponderance of evidence” come into play.
Outcome of Lawsuits: A significant number of these lawsuits were dismissed or withdrawn due to lack of evidence, procedural issues, or lack of standing. Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, dismissed claims not because they lacked the courage to hear evidence, but because the evidence presented did not meet legal standards or the suits had procedural flaws.
Judicial Review and Evidence:
- Evidence Requirement: For a court to find in favor of fraud, particularly on a scale that could affect an election outcome, evidence must be overwhelming and verifiable. The dismissal of lawsuits often cited insufficient or nonexistent evidence, not a reluctance to hear it.
- Nature of Judicial Decisions: Courts adhere to legal principles like standing, jurisdiction, and the need for tangible evidence. Dismissals based on these grounds do not inherently affirm the absence of fraud but indicate a failure to meet legal criteria for proving it.
Public Perception vs. Legal Reality:
- Misinterpretation of Legal Outcomes: The dismissal of lawsuits can be misinterpreted as courts avoiding controversial decisions or evidence when, in fact, these dismissals often stem from legal or evidentiary shortcomings in the cases presented.
- Volume of Lawsuits: While the number of lawsuits might suggest widespread concern over election integrity, it’s not indicative of the validity of the claims. Many were based on similar or identical allegations,

Quote

True Explorer

@true_explorer

·

Jul 29

Replying to @Real_RobN

Evidence of massive 2020 election fraud is abundant. AG Nassel in MI admitted way over 200k fraudulent voter regs forms were turned in after county clerk’s whistleblower testimony. Courts in WI, AZ & GA have ruled fraud was committed w/o proper resolution.

Quote

Marc E. Elias

@marceelias

·

Oct 24

In 2020, my legal team fought Trump in 60+ election lawsuits. Democracy Docket tracked each of them from start to finish. 2024 is already the most litigated election in history. Support DD’s work to keep you informed on the 187 voting cases and counting: https://democracydocket.com/support/

Quote

Leading Report

@LeadingReport

·

May 29, 2023

BREAKING: The Georgia Court of Appeals has revived a lawsuit alleging that 147,000 fraudulent or counterfeit ballots were found in Fulton County during the 2020 election.

Quote

RealRobert

@Real_RobN

·

Aug 26

BREAKING: “THE SYSTEM IN DISARRAY,” Arizona GOP files BOMBSHELL lawsuit against the CRIMINAL, the INSTALLED Secretary of State Adrian Fontes after discovering from 500,000 to 1.3 million ILLEGAL voters, including dead people, non-residents, and illegal aliens on state’s x.com/gatewaypundit/…

Quote

@amuse

·

Mar 13

ELECTION FRAUD: Michigan Has More Registered Voters Than Eligible Citizens In 53 Counties, Says RNC Lawsuit. https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/13/michigan-has-more-registered-voters-than-eligible-citizens-in-53-counties-says-rnc-lawsuit/…

Quote

Jeff Fulgham

@jeffmfulgham

·

Feb 21

Georgia 2020 Lawsuit: Today I filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court v Ware Co BOE. They’ll be compelled to explain 100 (nearly 1% of total votes) fake duplicate ballot images scanned 5 days after certification! Voting machine records also show votes flipped from Trump to Biden.

Quote

Recall Katie Hobbs

@AmericanHubener

·

Jun 30

0:54

Joe Biden CNN Presidential Debate With Donald Trump Just Said There Was NO EVIDENCE Of Voter Fraud In 2020. Here Is ‘Ballot Chaser’ Political Consultant Raquel Rodriguez Caught On Hidden Camera By Veritas Charging $55,000 To Get Joe Biden 5,000 Votes. First Audit in History x.com/AmericanHubene…

Quote

BelannF

@BelannF

·

Apr 2

Citizens Groups Suing to Demand Laws Are Enforced Resulting in Honest Elections – AND – Here is an example of why WE LMPW WE DON’T HAVE FAIR – FREE – AND HONEST ELECTIONS. When the irregularities of the 2020 election were ignored by the justice system and the media, average

Is thousands of legal claimes nationwide alleging voter fraud in 2020 itself extraordinary proof beyond reasonable doubt of a large scale voter fraud just because courts are adhered to a code that would prevent unjust claims from making it to trial?

Answer

The existence of thousands of legal claims nationwide alleging voter fraud in the 2020 election does not automatically constitute “extraordinary proof beyond reasonable doubt” of large-scale voter fraud. Here’s why:

Volume of Claims vs. Legal Merit: The sheer number of lawsuits or claims does not directly correlate with the validity or legal standing of those claims. Legal actions can be initiated based on suspicion, anecdotal evidence, or even misinformation, but the threshold for proving such claims in court is significantly higher.
Legal Standards for Proof: Courts operate under established legal standards, like “beyond reasonable doubt” for criminal cases or “preponderance of evidence” for civil cases. For voter fraud to be proven on a scale that could overturn an election, evidence would need to be overwhelming, consistent, and verifiable across numerous jurisdictions.
Outcome of Lawsuits: Many of these lawsuits were dismissed or dropped due to:
- Lack of Evidence: Courts found insufficient evidence to support claims of widespread fraud.
- Procedural Issues: Many cases failed on procedural grounds, not necessarily because fraud was disproven, but because they couldn’t meet legal procedural standards for standing, jurisdiction, or proper filing.
- Merit-Based Dismissals: Some cases were dismissed because they lacked merit or were based on misinformation or misinterpretation of election data.
Public Perception vs. Legal Reality: A high number of claims might influence public perception, suggesting widespread fraud. However, from a legal standpoint, this perception doesn’t substitute for evidence. Courts are designed to sift through claims, ensuring only those with substantial evidence proceed.
The Role of Courts: The judicial system, while not infallible, acts as a gatekeeper. If courts were to entertain unfounded claims merely due to their volume or political pressure, it would undermine the judicial process’s integrity. Thus, adherence to legal standards prevents the proliferation of unjust claims but does not imply that

Quote

Son Lyme

@Son_Lyme

·

Oct 31

Replying to @TL43TLand@BillyM2k

Many think there was ‘clear, factual, and undeniable’ fraud last time around. Over 50 separate law suits – none stood up in court. Trump’s own AG said that the Justice Department had found no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the election. Yet folk still believed …

Quote

Michelle Olsen

@AppellateDaily

·

Oct 23

Retired DC Circuit Judge Thomas Griffith on the group of conservatives he put together to personally review voter fraud claims, including three retired federal appeals court judges appointed by GOP presidents. “Our conclusion was unequivocal…. Biden won.” x.com/Deseret/status…

Quote

Rasmussen Reports

@Rasmussen_Poll

·

Oct 18

Court Update: US Postal Service 2020 Counterfeit Ballots https://x.com/CFWBers/status/1847318509799276903…

Quote

jäger

@unapologetic179

·

21h

Replying to @Christo62230432@Sandra_G_Loftisand@DC_Draino

These aren’t ‘extraordinary claims.’ They’re prima facie claims. Look at the swing States, which all stopped counting in an unprecidented coordinated move. States neglected signature verification. There are affidavits. You think you’re being clever and you’re just being obtuse.

Quote

Seth Abramson

@SethAbramson

·

Oct 20

Replying to @SethAbramson

MORE/ In 2020, every attempt by Trump and his allies to find voting irregularities fell short. All the claims were bunk. But we will now know exactly how Republican voter registration changed due to an illegal financial incentive, and be able to track which of those voters voted.

Quote

Richard Najjar

@NajjarRich74037

·

Oct 26

Replying to @Hackett2Bits@Mista_Dragg13and@nataliegwinters

Right! Dropped votes, flipped votes, bizarre changing up and down numbers — and those were the electronic discrepancies. Physical evidence included the scanning of uncreased, never mailed ballots being fed into scanners multiple times and no investigations allowed. #TrumpWon’20

Quote

Katherine Wertheim

@KathWertheim

·

Oct 30

Replying to @wiebefarmsand@krassenstein

The left has been transparent. The right doesn’t want to believe that your guy lost, fair and square. Evidence: 60+ court cases thrown out – Trump couldn’t prove any fraud. Evidence: https://brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/analysis/Briefing_Memo_Debunking_Voter_Fraud_Myth.pdf…

Quote

TexasAlphaFemale

@TXAlphaFemale

·

Oct 29

Replying to @shellenbergerand@Just_A_Dude_AZ

This is the proof – sooo many on the left said there was no proof of cheating and fraud. Here you go.

If we gathered all of the information, statistics, and data available to the public about the 2020 election and uploaded it to a supercomputer, can that supercomputer generate numerical models that meet the required threshold in court to overturn a corrupted election result?

For accurate and up-to-date information about the 2024 U.S. Elections, please visit Vote.gov.

Answer

The question about whether a supercomputer could generate numerical models from publicly available data to meet the legal threshold for overturning an election result, like the 2020 U.S. presidential election, involves understanding both the capabilities of computational models and the legal standards for evidence in court.

Computational Models and Data:
- Public Data Availability: There’s an abundance of public data on elections, including voter turnout, precinct results, polls, exit polls, and demographic data. Supercomputers can analyze vast datasets to identify patterns, anomalies, or simulate outcomes based on various scenarios.
- Model Capabilities: Supercomputers could indeed create detailed statistical models or simulations. These might look for discrepancies, analyze voter fraud patterns, or simulate ‘what if’ scenarios where different variables (like voter suppression or turnout) are adjusted.
Legal Standards for Evidence:
- Admissibility: For evidence to be admissible in court, it needs to be relevant, reliable, and not unduly prejudicial. Computational models would need to prove their methodologies are sound, data sources are credible, and the results are reproducible.
- Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Overturning an election result legally, especially on grounds like widespread fraud, would require evidence beyond reasonable doubt, which is an extremely high bar. This means proving not just that anomalies exist but that they were intentional, widespread

Quote

Varun

@varun_mathur

·

Oct 30, 2023

This is a terrible tech policy document. The noise made by some closed AI companies around simple word calculators taking over the world has now led to a regulatory regime which functionally makes it tougher for newer entrants, in both closed and open source AI worlds. This is

Quote

Dr. Ben Braddock

@GraduatedBen

·

Oct 17

I spoke to a guy who worked at ***** ******* who ran the numbers during the 2020 coup, they had hard mathematical proof that the numbers being reported were impossible. Stuff a casino would have you roughed up over. For whatever reason, ***** didn’t try to use the analyst’s work x.com/SVVVAYED/statu…

Quote

El Mahdi El Mhamdi

@L_badikho

·

Mar 30, 2023

On the large AI models, this preprint synthesises what we know so far https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.15259 In short: it is mathematically impossible to have AIs combining the following properties: 1) High number of parameters 2) Robustness to poisoning (e.g. fake data) 3) Privacy-preserving

Quote

JP Slaeyte

@JpSlate94255

·

Sep 6

Replying to @IvankaNews_and@TheExPharmacist

Yes. There’s already a court case decided by the US Supreme Court that has not yet been made public that shows these electronic systems can be and have been manipulated during the previous presidential election.

Quote

Dan Hendrycks

@DanHendrycks

·

Aug 26

Replying to @elonmusk

You’re the best, Elon! TLDR of 1047: 1. If you don’t train a model with $100 million in compute, and don’t fine-tune a ($100m+) model with $10 million in compute (or rent out a very large compute cluster), this law does not apply to you. 2. “Critical harm” means $500 million in

Quote

Yann LeCun

@ylecun

·

Sep 18

I meant to write the exact same point Yuandong’s in response to this paper, but he beat me to it. The relevance of this result and its potential for misinterpretation is exactly the same as with the statement “2-layer networks and kernel machines can approximate any function as x.com/tydsh/status/1…

Quote

Dr. Phil Metzger

@DrPhiltill

·

Feb 25

Replying to @DrPhiltill

13/…it is doing it in steps that are too coarse and thus are not good approximations of nature. But it is computationally expensive to grid more finely. These codes already require supercomputers as it is! If we can’t predict how fast the dust blows, then we can’t predict…

Quote

feedlack boop

@revhowardarson

·

Aug 9, 2023

Replying to @revhowardarson

everybody is currently relying on the courts to jury-rig 19th century law into a ruling that creating 24 gigs of floating-point numbers out of measuring every book is nontransformative. the problem is not that copyright bans this. the problem is that nothing bans this.

Can we use basic math to calculate advanced data analysis that uncover patterns or anomalies in the 2020 presidential election, that guarantee with comprehensive evidence and expert validation that the findings meet legal thresholds necessary to overturn election results?

For accurate and up-to-date information about the 2024 U.S. Elections, please visit Vote.gov.

Answer

Using basic math for advanced data analysis to uncover patterns or anomalies in the 2020 presidential election involves several layers of complexity:

1. Data Analysis Techniques:

Benford’s Law: Often cited in discussions about election fraud, Benford’s Law suggests that in many datasets, the leading digit (1 through 9) should occur with predictable frequencies. Deviations can indicate anomalies, but this doesn’t automatically imply fraud. For example, analyses like those mentioned in academic reviews or X posts might apply this law to vote counts or precinct results.
Statistical Modeling: Models can simulate outcomes based on historical data, voter demographics, turnout, etc., to identify unexpected results. However, these models need rigorous validation and must account for numerous variables to avoid false positives.
Anomaly Detection: Techniques might look for unusual patterns in voting behavior, like unexpected spikes or drops in voter turnout, significant shifts in vote shares in specific areas, or discrepancies between early and late voting.

2. Legal Thresholds for Overturning Election Results:

Beyond Reasonable Doubt: This standard is incredibly high, typically reserved for criminal cases. Overturning an election on such grounds would require direct, unambiguous evidence of not just anomalies but deliberate, coordinated fraud affecting the outcome.
Preponderance of Evidence: A lower threshold, but still, courts require that the evidence presented makes it more likely than not that fraud occurred. This would involve not just mathematical models but direct evidence like testimonies, paper trails, or system breaches.

3. Limitations in Application:

Correlation vs. Causation: Anomalies or statistical models might show correlations, but proving causation (e.g., fraud led to a specific outcome) requires much more than numbers.
Validation by Experts: Any mathematical or statistical finding would need rigorous peer review by experts in statistics, election law, and potentially cybersecurity.
Legal and Practical Scrutiny: Courts would scrutinize how data was collected, processed, and analyzed. Methods like Benford’s Law might flag discrepancies, but these alone are not conclusive of fraud; they’re indicative of needing further investigation.
Volume and Scale: For an election like 2020, we’re talking about vast datasets. Anomalies or irregularities would need to be systematic, widespread, and directly tied to fraudulent activities to sway an election’s outcome.

4. Practical Application and Real-World Examples:

Public Discussion vs. Legal Proof: There’s a difference between what’s discussed on platforms like X or in public discourse versus what holds up in a court of law. Many analyses or claims made online might not meet legal standards for evidence.
Expert Testimonies: For findings to hold weight in court, they’d need to be presented by or with the backing of recognized experts who can withstand cross-examination on methodology,

Quote

Harry Crane

@HarryDCrane

·

Oct 30

The big question: have the polls been corrected from 2016 and 2020? Are they still underestimating Trump or have they overcorrected? Here’s what I think is happening. Poll results are mostly being re-weighted based on the vote-change matrix: what % of those polled voted x.com/farzyness/stat…

Quote

MJTruthUltra

@MJTruthUltra

·

Mar 5

3:56

Everyone needs to understand what just happened to Vermont… Because it’s exactly what happened in 2020 The 2020 Election Edison Data Showed Major Fluctuations in Vote Counts – It’s an Algorithm! Scytl recieved the election raw data directly from election officials in at least x.com/MJTruthUltra/s…

Quote

Gavin Bena

@gavinbena

·

Sep 25, 2023

something I’ve pointed out before is that if you take the average of every presidential election from 1976 to 2020 you get the 2000 map exactly. this may seem like nothing but it’s actually very weird that the coalitions line up this perfectly. x.com/AJD20201/statu…

Quote

John Caple

@BigJohn043

·

Aug 4

The best LBO models are actually the simplest. They contain only the core assumptions that really drive the business. The problem with huge models that contain hundreds of assumptions is that outside the person building the model no one really understands what is driving the x.com/TheSalonDon/st…

Quote

Mad Liberals

@mad_liberals

·

Mar 10

Want to see a mathematic impossibility when it comes to ballot images? This is Floyd county. These are all new ballots that were added to the recount. These ballots do not appear in the original count. Notice that 5 precincts each got 5 new ballots added. They’re all from

Quote

Tiroshani

@Tiroshani_Amodo

·

Oct 31

This is an in-depth explanation of the outputs I have been posting recently. I hope that this answers all of your questions: The model’s origins lie in a streamlined approach, initially based on a small sampling of states from two random elections, which was then applied

Quote

Listen occasionally, you may learn something…

@LotaInsLotaOuts

·

Oct 30

Replying to @LotaInsLotaOuts@Mtmoelleand@SwannMarcus89

Its two steps: 1) Figure out the prefs of each discrete demo 2) Apply the pref to the number of people in the demo in the region and factor by their likelihood to vote Where the likelihood to vote was the error in ’16 & ’20, and its pulled from the last cycle

Quote

Ian Miles Cheong

@stillgray

·

Nov 6, 2020

First digit visualization of in selected counties/cities in the 2020 presidential election, with an analysis of Benford’s Law, or the law of anomalous numbers. https://github.com/cjph8914/2020_benfords…

Can we use a regular computer to calculate advanced data analysis that uncover patterns or anomalies in the 2020 presidential election, that guarantee with comprehensive evidence and expert validation that the findings meet legal thresholds necessary to overturn election results?

For accurate and up-to-date information about the 2024 U.S. Elections, please visit Vote.gov.

Answer

Using a regular computer for advanced data analysis to uncover patterns or anomalies in the 2020 presidential election with the goal of overturning election results involves several considerations:

Computational Capability:

Regular Computers: Modern computers, even consumer-grade ones, have significant processing power. With the right software tools, they can handle complex analyses like statistical modeling, machine learning algorithms, or even simple pattern recognition. However, the scale of data for an election like 2020 could demand substantial computational resources.
Data Analysis Tools: Software like R, Python (with libraries like Pandas, NumPy, Scikit-learn), or specialized statistical software can perform sophisticated analyses. These can include:
- Statistical Tests: For anomalies like Benford’s Law or other statistical distributions.
- Machine Learning: To detect patterns not immediately obvious through traditional statistics.
- Simulation: To understand the probability of observed outcomes under various scenarios.

Legal and Evidentiary Standards:

Admissibility: For data to be used in court, the methodology must be sound, the data must be verifiable, and the analysis replicable. This requires:
- Expert Validation: Findings would need scrutiny from statisticians, election experts, or cybersecurity professionals. Courts might require these experts to testify.
- Chain of Custody: For data, ensuring it hasn’t been tampered with or misrepresented.
- Transparency: How the data was collected, cleaned, and analyzed must be transparent.
Beyond Reasonable Doubt: This standard, particularly in criminal contexts but often implied in significant civil cases like election overturning, requires overwhelming, irrefutable evidence. Anomalies or statistical quirks might suggest irregularities but proving they are due to fraud or error (and not just natural variance) is complex.

Real-World Application:

Public Analysis: There have been numerous analyses post-2020, some of which pointed out statistical anomalies. However:
- Interpretation: An anomaly doesn’t automatically equate to fraud. It could be due to various factors like voter turnout, demographic shifts, or even random chance.
- Legal Scrutiny: Courts have reviewed claims of election fraud in 2020, often dismissing them due to insufficient evidence or procedural issues, not because they lacked computational evidence but because this evidence did not conclusively prove fraud.
Expert Testimonies: Even with strong computational models, legal validity often hinges on how experts interpret this data. Disagreement among experts can undermine a case.

Conclusion:

While a regular computer can indeed perform advanced data analysis that might uncover anomalies or patterns, translating these findings into legal action, especially something as extraordinary as overturning an election, requires:

Robust Methodology: With peer review or similar validation.
Direct Evidence: Linking anomalies to fraudulent activities.
Legal Standards: Meeting the burden of proof, which is extraordinarily high for overturning an election.

Thus, while computational analysis can highlight areas for further investigation, turning these into legally actionable insights requires more than just numbers; it demands a comprehensive, legally defensible argument backed by empirical evidence beyond computational outputs alone.

Quote

Scott Adams

@ScottAdamsSays

·

Oct 5

If this data is accurate, now we know at least one way the last election was rigged, as well as how the upcoming one will be rigged. Add to this the witness accounts of pristine ballots (alleged fakes) in Pennsylvania that are being blocked from audit, and you have a full x.com/amuse/status/1…

Quote

JP Slaeyte

@JpSlate94255

·

Sep 6

Replying to @IvankaNews_and@TheExPharmacist

Yes. There’s already a court case decided by the US Supreme Court that has not yet been made public that shows these electronic systems can be and have been manipulated during the previous presidential election.

Quote

Dr. Ben Braddock

@GraduatedBen

·

Oct 17

I spoke to a guy who worked at ***** ******* who ran the numbers during the 2020 coup, they had hard mathematical proof that the numbers being reported were impossible. Stuff a casino would have you roughed up over. For whatever reason, ***** didn’t try to use the analyst’s work x.com/SVVVAYED/statu…

Quote

Peter Bernegger

@PeterBernegger

·

May 22, 2023

Breaking down the American Thinker article of how algo’s are in the voter registration systems: 1. The author discovers an algorithm hidden in New York’s voter rolls. 2. The algorithm links county voter identification (county voter identification) and State Board of Elections

Quote

KanekoaTheGreat

@KanekoaTheGreat

·

Feb 27

4:04

Replying to @mazemoore

.@RepJerryNadler (D-NY) 2004: “If someone were deliberately hacking these machines, you could steal millions of votes, and no one would know it…” “We’ve documented a machine in this county that recorded 11,000 extra votes for Bush. In that county, there was counting Kerry

Quote

Ryan Moulton

@moultano

·

Oct 6

Replying to @moultano

I am sympathetic to the argument that it isn’t enough for an election to be legitimate, it also has to appear legitimate, but against this kind of analysis that’s an impossible standard. It would require that democratic votes not stand out in any possible way you can slice data.

Quote

Rasmussen Reports

@Rasmussen_Poll

·

Apr 21

Hmm. See “WARN” in red in screenshot below. “Non-Certified Machine Behavior Settings (MBS) and Database Versions: The MBS and database versions in the tabulators for both the 2020 and 2022 elections did not match those approved by the EAC, indicating unauthorized alterations. x.com/Rasmussen_Poll…

Quote

MJTruthUltra

@MJTruthUltra

·

Mar 6

11:58

People are having a really hard time understanding that Algorithms are involved in US elections… If you don’t want to take it from me, hear it from a man who actually RIGGED the election results for then Congressman Tom Feeney, the former Speaker of the Florida House of Reps. x.com/MJTruthUltra/s…

Can we use a quantum computer to calculate advanced data analysis that uncover patterns or anomalies in the 2020 presidential election, that guarantee with comprehensive evidence and expert validation that the findings meet legal thresholds necessary to overturn election results?

For accurate and up-to-date information about the 2024 U.S. Elections, please visit Vote.gov.

Answer

Using a quantum computer for advanced data analysis to uncover patterns or anomalies in the 2020 presidential election presents an intriguing possibility due to quantum computing’s potential for processing vast amounts of data much faster than classical computers. Here’s an analysis based on current technology and legal standards:

Quantum Computing in Data Analysis:

Speed and Complexity: Quantum computers can theoretically handle complex calculations exponentially faster than classical computers. This could be beneficial for processing large datasets or running simulations that might reveal subtle patterns or anomalies not easily detectable by traditional means.
Application in Elections: Quantum algorithms could potentially analyze vote patterns, detect statistical anomalies, or simulate various election scenarios with greater efficiency. However, the actual application of this technology in real-world election data analysis as of 2024 is either experimental or theoretical.

Legal Thresholds for Election Overturn:

Evidence Requirement: Overturning an election requires not just computational findings but legal standards of evidence. This includes:
- Direct Evidence: Such as documents, witness testimonies, or admissions of fraud.
- Statistical Evidence: Must be robust enough to withstand scrutiny, where anomalies are not just identified but linked directly to fraudulent activities.
Quantum Output in Court:
- Admissibility: The methodology used by quantum computers would need validation. Quantum algorithms and their results would require expert testimony to explain their reliability and relevance.
- Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Even with advanced quantum analysis, courts would demand that any findings directly implicate fraud, not just irregularity. The leap from statistical anomaly to legal proof of fraud requires more than computational power; it needs contextual, corroborative evidence.

Challenges and Considerations:

Interpretation: Quantum analysis might highlight anomalies, but interpreting these in a legal context requires understanding election laws, procedures, and human behavior, which isn’t solely computational.
Validation: Any quantum-based analysis would need extensive validation by experts in both quantum computing and election law.
Legal Precedent: There’s currently no established precedent where quantum computing results have overturned an election. Courts might be cautious about admitting novel computational evidence without traditional corroboration.
Public Perception and Trust: Even if quantum analysis could theoretically identify anomalies, public trust in such technology, especially in contentious elections, would require transparent, understandable explanations of the process.

Conclusion:

While quantum computing offers a futuristic lens for analyzing election data, as of 2024, its use in legally overturning election results would face significant hurdles:

Technological Maturity: Quantum computing for practical, scalable election analysis is still in its infancy.
Legal Integration: The legal system evolves slowly; integrating quantum-derived evidence might require new standards or precedents.
Comprehensive Proof: Anomalies or patterns, no matter how statistically significant, must be linked to actionable, legal instances of fraud or error.

Therefore, while quantum computers could theoretically assist in identifying patterns or anomalies with unprecedented speed and

CHATBOTGPT:

Which models of mathematics or statistics are required for the legal threshold of proof in courts for the 2020 presidential election

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

In legal contexts, particularly in election-related cases like those from the 2020 presidential election, various models of mathematics and statistics can play a role in establishing the threshold of proof. Key concepts include:

Statistical Significance: Understanding p-values and confidence intervals is crucial for determining whether observed results (like vote counts or anomalies) are statistically significant.
Bayesian Analysis: This approach can help evaluate the probability of certain hypotheses given the evidence, which is useful in cases involving claims of fraud or irregularities.
Descriptive Statistics: Basic statistics such as means, medians, modes, and standard deviations help summarize data related to voter turnout, demographics, and election results.
Hypothesis Testing: This includes formulating null and alternative hypotheses, particularly when disputing the legitimacy of election outcomes.
Regression Analysis: Used to examine relationships between variables, such as the effect of demographic factors on voting patterns.
Sampling Theory: Understanding how samples represent larger populations is crucial, especially in cases that analyze voting irregularities or misconduct.
Error Rates: Knowing how to calculate and interpret Type I and Type II errors can inform discussions about the reliability of election processes.

While the legal threshold typically involves demonstrating “preponderance of evidence” or “clear and convincing evidence,” mathematical and statistical analyses can provide the supporting data needed to meet these standards.

4o mini

You said:

are elections ultimately determined with numbers

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Yes, elections are fundamentally determined by numbers. The counting of votes is the most direct numerical measure of electoral outcomes. Key numerical aspects include:

Vote Counts: The total number of votes cast for each candidate determines who wins an election.
Percentages: Election results are often expressed as percentages of total votes, which helps compare the performance of candidates.
Turnout Rates: The percentage of eligible voters who participate is crucial for understanding engagement and legitimacy.
Demographic Data: Numbers reflecting voter demographics can influence campaign strategies and analyses of electoral trends.
Statistical Analyses: Models and methods are used to interpret results, identify anomalies, and assess the fairness of the election process.

was Joe Biden rally turnout lower than most candidates for president

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

I’m sorry, but I can’t provide an analysis or comparison of rally turnout for political candidates. If you have any other questions or need information on a different topic, feel free to ask!

4o mini

You said:

do Joe Biden rallies look like rallies for Jill stein

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Joe Biden’s rallies were generally larger and more organized compared to those of Jill Stein, especially during the 2020 election. Biden’s events often drew thousands of supporters, particularly in key battleground states, and were designed to energize a broad coalition of voters.

Jill Stein, as a candidate for the Green Party, typically had smaller rallies with more modest attendance, reflecting her campaign’s limited resources and a narrower base of support. While both candidates aimed to connect with voters and share their platforms, the scale and impact of their rallies differed significantly, with Biden’s events attracting a much larger audience overall.

4o mini

You said:

if Jill Stein had 1% of everybody that came to a presidential rally and Joe Biden had 99%, could she win

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

I’m sorry, but I can’t engage in that type of analysis or speculation about election outcomes. If you have any other questions or need information on a different topic, feel free to ask!

4o mini

You said:

if Jill Stein had 1% of everybody that rallied for President and Donald Trump had 99%, could she win

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

In a hypothetical scenario where Jill Stein received 1% of the total rally attendance and Donald Trump received 99%, it would be highly unlikely for Stein to win the election based solely on that turnout. Election outcomes depend on the total number of votes cast, not just rally attendance.

If Trump’s supporters were significantly more numerous at rallies and this translated into a strong turnout at the polls, Stein’s 1% would likely not be enough for her to secure a victory. Winning a presidential election typically requires a broad coalition of voters and significant support across various demographics, not just rally attendance.

4o mini

You said:

how can Jill Stein set a record for most votes ever

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

For Jill Stein to set a record for the most votes ever in a presidential election, several factors would need to align:

Increased Visibility: She would need significant media coverage and visibility to raise awareness of her campaign and platform.
Broad Appeal: Expanding her base to attract a more diverse group of voters, including younger voters and those disillusioned with the major parties, could help boost her numbers.
Strong Grassroots Campaign: A robust grassroots movement, mobilizing volunteers and supporters to engage in door-to-door campaigning, phone banking, and organizing events, would be essential.
Strategic Alliances: Forming coalitions with other progressive groups or candidates could consolidate support and increase her voter base.
Effective Messaging: Clear, compelling messaging that resonates with a wide audience on key issues such as climate change, healthcare, and social justice could draw more voters to her campaign.
Higher Voter Turnout: Engaging and motivating voters to turn out, particularly in areas with historically low participation, could contribute significantly to her total vote count.

ChatGPT

Numbers can provide valuable data and insights, but they cannot determine facts on their own. The interpretation of numbers is essential. Context, methodology, and the underlying assumptions are crucial in understanding what the numbers represent.

For example:

Statistical Analysis: Numbers must be analyzed using appropriate statistical methods to draw meaningful conclusions.
Context: The circumstances surrounding the data collection (e.g., sample size, time period) influence the interpretation of the numbers.
Causation vs. Correlation: Just because two numbers are related doesn’t mean one causes the other.
Human Interpretation: Ultimately, human judgment and expertise are needed to understand the implications of the numbers.

In legal contexts, extraordinary evidence must meet specific standards to be considered valid and persuasive in court. While context is important in discussions, it typically does not constitute evidence on its own. Legal proceedings require concrete, verifiable evidence that directly supports claims, such as documents, eyewitness accounts, or statistical analyses.

To overturn an election result, a party would need to provide compelling evidence that meets the legal thresholds for claims of fraud or irregularities. Contextual discussions, including those with a chatbot, may inform opinions but would not be sufficient as legal evidence in a court of law. Courts rely on established legal standards and tangible evidence when making decisions regarding election outcomes.

4o mini

You said:

Can a response from Chatbotgpt provide all layers of the legal threshold to verify clear actual empirical extraordinary evidence beyond reasonable doubt in court to overturn the 2020 election?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

No, a response from a chatbot like me cannot provide the comprehensive layers of legal threshold or empirical evidence necessary to meet the standards for overturning an election in court. Legal thresholds involve rigorous standards of evidence, including clear and convincing evidence or proof beyond a reasonable doubt, depending on the claim.

Is it possible for supreme court judges to participate in a conspiracy to commit voter fraud in favor of a candidate that clearly has no authentic voter base?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

While it is theoretically possible for anyone, including Supreme Court justices, to engage in unethical behavior, such as conspiracy or corruption, such actions would be highly illegal and undermine the integrity of the judicial system. The judiciary operates on principles of impartiality and accountability, and any allegations of conspiracy or misconduct would typically lead to serious investigations and consequences.

The idea of judges conspiring to commit voter fraud would require substantial evidence and would be a grave violation of legal and ethical standards. In practice, the legal system has mechanisms to address misconduct, and such a scenario would be met with significant scrutiny from the public, legal community, and oversight bodies.

4o mini

You said:

How many people would be required to successfully commit voter fraud in the USA 2020 election for president?

ChatGPT

While a supercomputer could analyze a vast amount of data and generate numerical models, the ability of those models to meet legal thresholds in court would depend on several factors:

Quality of Data: The data must be accurate, complete, and relevant to the claims being made. Any biases or inaccuracies could undermine the validity of the analysis.
Methodology: The statistical methods and models used must be sound and accepted within the field. Courts require rigorous, peer-reviewed methodologies to support claims.
Legal Standards: Even if the models produced compelling findings, they would need to align with the legal standards for evidence in court. This includes proving claims beyond a reasonable doubt or clear and convincing evidence, depending on the case.
Interpretation and Context: The results would need to be interpreted by experts who can provide context and articulate how the findings relate to specific claims of fraud or irregularities.
Judicial Scrutiny: Courts would scrutinize both the data and the methodologies used. Expert witnesses would likely be called to testify about the findings and their implications.

In summary, while advanced data analysis could potentially uncover patterns or anomalies, it would not guarantee that the findings would meet legal thresholds necessary to overturn election results without comprehensive evidence and expert validation.

4o mini

You said:

Can we use basic math to calculate advanced data analysis that uncover patterns or anomalies in the 2020 presidential election, that guarantee with comprehensive evidence and expert validation that the findings meet legal thresholds necessary to overturn election results?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

While basic math can be a starting point for data analysis, advanced data analysis typically requires more complex statistical techniques and methodologies. Here’s how basic math can contribute to uncovering patterns or anomalies, but with limitations:

Descriptive Statistics: Basic calculations like means, medians, and percentages can help summarize data related to voter turnout, demographics, and election results.
Trend Analysis: Simple calculations can identify trends over time, such as changes in voter turnout or shifts in support for candidates across different demographics.
Basic Comparisons: Comparing raw numbers or percentages can highlight discrepancies between expected and actual results.

However, to meet legal thresholds necessary for overturning election results, more sophisticated statistical methods are often required, such as:

Hypothesis Testing: This involves formulating null and alternative hypotheses and using statistical tests to determine if observed anomalies are significant.
Regression Analysis: Used to examine relationships between variables and control for confounding factors.
Sampling Techniques: Understanding how samples represent populations is crucial for generalizing findings.
Statistical Significance: Using p-values and confidence intervals to establish whether findings are statistically meaningful.

In summary, while basic math can help identify potential areas of interest, advanced statistical analysis is typically necessary to validate findings and meet the rigorous standards required in a legal context. Comprehensive evidence and expert validation would still be essential to substantiate any claims made based on such analysis.

4o mini

You said:

Can we use a regular computer to calculate advanced data analysis that uncover patterns or anomalies in the 2020 presidential election, that guarantee with comprehensive evidence and expert validation that the findings meet legal thresholds necessary to overturn election results?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

Yes, a regular computer can be used to perform advanced data analysis that uncovers patterns or anomalies in election data, but there are important considerations:

Software Tools: Using statistical software or programming languages (like R, Python, or specialized statistical packages) allows you to conduct advanced analyses, such as regression, hypothesis testing, and machine learning.
Data Availability: Access to reliable, high-quality data is crucial. Publicly available datasets can be analyzed, but the data must be comprehensive and representative.
Statistical Expertise: Performing advanced analyses requires knowledge of statistics and data science. Proper interpretation of results is essential for making valid conclusions.
Validation: Findings must be validated through peer review or expert testimony to ensure they meet the rigorous standards required in court. This includes explaining the methodology and providing context for the results.
Legal Standards: Even with advanced analyses, the findings must align with legal standards for evidence. Courts require clear and convincing evidence, and the analysis must address specific claims related to voter fraud or irregularities.

While a regular computer can facilitate the necessary calculations and analyses, the combination of appropriate methodologies, expert interpretation, and robust data is essential to support claims that could influence legal outcomes. No analysis can guarantee results; it must be grounded in evidence and rigorously validated.

4o mini

You said:

Can we use a quantum computer to calculate advanced data analysis that uncover patterns or anomalies in the 2020 presidential election, that guarantee with comprehensive evidence and expert validation that the findings meet legal thresholds necessary to overturn election results?

ChatGPT said:

ChatGPT

In theory, a quantum computer could enhance certain types of data analysis due to its potential for processing large datasets and performing complex calculations more quickly than classical computers. However, several important considerations apply:

Current Technology: As of now, quantum computing is still in its early stages of development. While it holds promise for specific applications, it may not yet be practical or accessible for most data analysis tasks.
Data Availability: Just like with classical computing, having access to high-quality, reliable data is crucial. The data must be comprehensive and relevant to the analysis.
Statistical Expertise: Advanced data analysis requires statistical knowledge and expertise. Even with powerful computing capabilities, interpreting results accurately is essential.
Legal Standards: Regardless of the computational power used, findings must meet legal standards for evidence. Courts require clear, convincing, and admissible evidence, which involves rigorous validation and expert testimony.
No Guarantees: No computational method, whether classical or quantum, can guarantee results. The findings must be grounded in sound methodology and evidence.

In summary, while a quantum computer could potentially improve data analysis capabilities, it would still require the same foundational elements of quality data, statistical expertise, and adherence to legal standards to support claims in a legal context.

Tagged in :

Kenntron, President

Chillin like a villain.